How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Freudian_Slit]

The Bible IS supported by Science. Both evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidence, but they draw different conclusions based on that same evidence. Evolution is not true.

Do you say that with a straight face?

 

[Hypoxia]

Do you say that with a straight face?

Straight faith is the only face he has, apparently.

He's pretty close to truly faithful. Too bad he keeps bringing up 'science' and 'evidence' which are irrelevant to the True Believer. One with strong faith has no need for external justification or corroboration. Belief is enough. External reality that doesn't accord with belief is phony, fake news, satanic distraction.

And impossibilities are easily explained away via miracles. Earth stopped spinning for a day so a battle could continue? Sure thing! Red Sea parted for the Hebrews, then collapsed, so "Pharaoh's army got drownded"? Hey, it's in the book! Serpents and burning bushes talk? If you say so. Deities choose odd mouthpieces. Messages burnt into mountain ranges would be more impressive.

 

[phrodeau]

The Bible IS supported by Science. Both evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidence, but they draw different conclusions based on that same evidence. Evolution is not true.

Did your Holy Spirit Decoder Ring tell you that?

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Incorrect. Pi is not equal to three. Earth did not stop rotating in historical times. Whales are not fish and cannot swallow and regurgitate living humans. No global floods have drowned the planet. Breeding populations of all Earth's creatures do not fit onto an ark the size of the old San Francisco Bay ferryboat Eureka. The three (some say four) creation myths in Genesis don't accord with observations.

I would like to know where you see PI being 3 in the Bible before I explain that to you. Secondly, the earth did stop rotating. The sea creature did swallow Jonah. No one knows what type of creature it was. It could have been a dinosaur of some type probably Leviathon described in Job. Global flood absolutely happened. You don't need every variety of each kind. Two common cats would produce all Lions, Tigers, House cats, ect. Two common dogs would produce all Wolves, Kyotes, Dingos, ect.

And the head of the Archaeology Dept at Hebrew University says that zero evidence has been found to support the Exodus story. No archaeological evidence, none. This is A Big Thing in Israel, since that myth provides the justification for the existence of the Jewish state.

Untrue. They found lots of chariot wheels in the bottom of the Red Sea, they found the bricks made without straw and I am sure there is more than that. Check the Institute for Creation Research website if you really want to know the truth. It's not a myth and Israel has belonged to the Jews for thousands of years before Christ was even born. It only belongs to the Jews.

Let's suppose Moses led his people out of Egypt. Troops chase-em, but the Red Sea parts (no physical evidence of that, either), the Hebrews cross -- and then the sea collapses on the pursuers. "Pharaoh's army got drownded / Oh Mary don't you weep," as the spiritual goes.

Lots of physical evidence. Chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea...

Somebody would have noticed. Word would have spread. Some king in Nubia or Assyria or Mesopotamia would have assembled his soldiers and announced, "Hey boys, Pharaoh's army got drownded! Egypt's a ripe fruit. Saddle up, boys -- gold, wine, and pussy are just WAITING for us there! LET'S ROLL!"

They did notice and it was well known.

Yeah, the looting of Egypt would have been noted and recorded. Had it happened, after the army drowned. Which it didn't.

They gave to the Jews willingly to get them to leave.

Incorrect. Evolution, the survival of change over time, can be observed in real time in any biomedical lab. Since you pose "evolutionists and creationists" as opposites, you seem to mistake evolutionary theory as connected to biogenesis, the origin of life. Nope. Evolution makes no mention of origins, just what happens later.

Incorrect. The only type of evolution possible is micro within the species. Darwinian requires an increase in genetic information and has never been observed to happen ever. It's not biogenesis, it's abiogenesis and that also has never been observed to happen. Evolution makes no mention of origins because it's not true.


Ah, but 'way back around 1954, Urey and Miller showed that a mix of basic chemicals zapped with an electric jolt produces organic structures, the building blocks of life. They did NOT prove that lightning bolts zapping a primordial broth creates life. They DID show that deities aren't needed to get the biogenesis pricess going. Occam's Razor slices gods out of biogenesis.

Nucleotides are very basic and very far from life. Again, it's abiogenesis.

Later I'll talk about how looking for evidence is a sign of lack of faith.


I have faith that is backed up by the evidence.

My response is in bold above

 

[phrodeau]

My response is in bold above

I Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

What does the Holy Spirit Decoder Ring say about that?

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

How did Jonah survive without air or fresh water for three days?

 

[Tryharder62]

I think you read different gospels. John / Yahya was a predecessor or messenger who baptized all sorts of folks including Jesus / Yeshua but didn't baptize FOR Jesus / Yeshua or anyone else. John / Yahya had the baptism monopoly. You wanted baptism, you got in good with him.

Alas, he predicted a battle's outcome wrong, so Herod had his head chopped.

John / Yahya was disgustedly documented by Flavius Josephus as among the more prominent of the many asshole prophets and messiahs cluttering the landscape then. That's reflected in a scene in Monty Python's LIFE OF BRIAN with the mobbed street of prophets and magicians. Josephus didn't mention Jesus / Yeshua in his record, likely because he'd never heard of the insignificant conjurer.

But y'all gonna believe what ya wanna believe. That's the way of the world.

Josephus, a general in the Jewish Revolt who defected to the Romans and wrote a history of the Jews, grew up in Galilee. He documented many villages in his neighborhood. Nazareth was supposedly next door but he never mentioned it.

Emperor Constantine made Xianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, partly to please his Greek Xian mother Helena (later sainted). Helena took an imperial tour of the Holy Land, seeking to retrace the steps of Jesus / Yeshua. Her party search for Nazareth. Couldn't find it. Nobody had heard of it. So she renamed a village: "This is Nazareth." Being the emperor's mother, nobody argued.

I absolutely know I'm not reading the same gospels that you are getting this information from. John didn't baptize for Jesus he baptized because baptism is the outward profession of it inward faith in Jesus.

Josephus was not a Christ follower. He actually did write about Jesus. He may not have written about Nazareth but he wrote about Jesus. John didn't get beheaded because he predicted the outcome of a battle wrong. He outed Herod in disapproval that he divorced his wife and took his brother's wife. Herod was drunk celebrating his birthday and had this chick dancing for him and promised her that he would do whatever she wanted if she did. She wanted John's head.

Constantine actually signed a decree for religious tolerance in Christianity so after over 300 years people could worship and not fear. Helena did her pilgrimage 300 some years after Jesus was dead. There's no denying that Nazareth went downhill. Believe me I live in town in the Midwest. It used to be the Hub of activity in the county 100 years ago but today it ain't worth crap. it's still the same name but now it isn't a big deal.

I also don't confirm my evidence by using Monty Python Life of Brian.Lol Like I tell my kids when I know they're testing me, nice try sly guy, but no cigar.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

I Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

What does the Holy Spirit Decoder Ring say about that?

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

How did Jonah survive without air or fresh water for three days?

Here is the word translated Sea:

03220. My yam, yawm
Search for 03220 in KJV


from an unused root meaning to roar; a sea (as breaking in noisy surf) or large body of water; specifically (with the article), the Mediterranean Sea; sometimes a large river, or an artifical basin; locally, the west, or (rarely) the south:--sea (X -faring man, (-shore)), south, west (-ern, side, -ward).

As far as Jonah goes, it is possible that he died and the Lord raised him from the dead. Just as Christ died and rose again. Jonah was a picture of Christ. In the words of Jesus:

Mt 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Also, we don't know if it was a whale or what type of sea creature it was. It could have been the Leviathan mentioned in Job.

2785. khtov ketos, kay'-tos
Search for 2785 in KJV

probably from the base of 5490; a huge fish (as gaping for prey):--whale.

Lastly, there are scientists who claim that they can prove that a man can indeed survive 3 days in a whale's belly. Either way, God's word is true.

 

[phrodeau]

Can't do math, huh? A ten-cubit diameter is thirty-one and 4/10 cubits in circumference, not thirty. And Jesus was only dead for about forty hours, not three days and nights.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86462078&postcount=2240

 

[Noor]

ha ha ha

https://youtu.be/mTbFNsBy73I

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Do you say that with a straight face?

I say that with 100% confidence. I have been studying this stuff for years. The evidence always points back to God's word being true.

 

[Tryharder62]

I
Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

How did Jonah survive without air or fresh water for three days?

You're putting earthly limits on a limitless God. Believe me if He wants you to stay in the belly of a big fish for three days and three nights, you're going to do it. I tend to look at what he wanted us to learn by the story.

 

[phrodeau]

You're putting earthly limits on a limitless God. Believe me if He wants you to stay in the belly of a big fish for three days and three nights, you're going to do it. I tend to look at what he wanted us to learn by the story.

Anyone hearing that story would learn that Jonah is a lying SOB.

 

[ishtat]

Kjv

xFrodo. I have noticed that when you quote the Bible you usually seem to use the King James Authorized Version - the KJV

The KJV is without doubt the most influential Bible ever published and there is no doubt that its expressive language is particularly beautiful. However, its translation which was pretty much unchallenged for 250 years is weak in parts and sometimes plain wrong.

Among modern Biblical scholars particularly in the Protestant Churches it has been almost entirely replaced by the Revised Standard Version (RSV) from the 1880's and more recently the (NRSV)

Why do we need to be cautious with the KJV? Firstly its chief supervisor was Archbishop Richard Bancroft, he was a passionate enemy of the Puritans and Presbyterians and published a book to that effect (1594 I think). He was a devout believer in Anglican ecclesiology and the 'Divine rights of Bishops' and sought to suppress or de-emphasise anything in Jesus' teaching which might be in any sense revolutionary or contrary to established order. He was almost Catholic in his view of Church authority and contemptuous of the view that an individual could find salvation as an individual.

Secondly, James himself made it quite clear that as a firm believer in the divine right of Kings he did not wish to see emphasized, translation which impinged on that. He wrote in his own papers that stories of successful rebels against annointed monarchs were to be deplored. James and Bancrof had a number of objections to Tyndale's work on this ground.

The third point is more important. It was long thought that the KJV was better because it sourced original Greek texts particularly through the works of Erasmus. Erasmus was certainly the main source but as indicated by his private papers he himself bemoaned greatly the lack of good Greek comparative material. Unfortunately Erasmus made the problem worse by preferring later Byzantine texts rather than the older Greek written in Koine; that was understandable as an academic appreciating the quality of the Byzantine writers but it distanced his translation from the original words of the New Testament.

The bluntness of Mark's rather crude Greek comes through much more clearly in the RSV and NRSV as does Paul's passion as a polemicist in the letters he wrote. In contrast the Pastoral Epistles written by Paul's followers in his name are drier more academic in style and much more concerned with the function of the emerging Church rather than Pauls account of Jesus.

I am not going to get into the details of particular translations save to suggest that more recent work in the RSV and NRSV is much more soundly based on much broader and contemporaneous Greek material. I think that in your arguments here, you would be on stronger ground if you used, for example, The New Oxford Annotated Bible , partly because of its superior translation, but equally for the fact that there is over a thousand pages of detailed annotation and explanation, which saves one from a host of potential errors.

I wouldn't for a moment seek to dissuade you from reading the KJV because nothing can match the majesty of its eloquence However, if you want to argue a point successfully the KJV doesn't compare favourably with more recent translations.

 

[Harrywildone]

Again, moving right along........

 

[Hypoxia]

You're putting earthly limits on a limitless God. Believe me if He wants you to stay in the belly of a big fish for three days and three nights, you're going to do it. I tend to look at what he wanted us to learn by the story.

That's the crux of the matter. Your {JHWH} or any other deity can manufacture evidence to support whatever interpretation they want. We must thus assume that all divine 'evidence' is false, whipped-up to deceive us. A miracle here, a miracle there -- they add up, gluing together all the impossibilities.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Catholic saints' relics? Do little organic fragments allegedly from holy bodies effect miracle cures?

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Anyone hearing that story would learn that Jonah is a lying SOB.

Jesus Christ affirmed the story of Jonah and the rest of the scriptures. He quoted them often to make His points. He is the one who inspired them.

 

[Tryharder62]

Anyone hearing that story would learn that Jonah is a lying SOB.

Well I guess I'm not anyone! maybe it's because I was never issued a holy spirit decoder ring.

That's the crux of the matter. Your {JHWH} or any other deity can manufacture evidence to support whatever interpretation they want. We must thus assume that all divine 'evidence' is false, whipped-up to deceive us. A miracle here, a miracle there -- they add up, gluing together all the impossibilities.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Catholic saints' relics? Do little organic fragments allegedly from holy bodies effect miracle cures?

I don't believe it's manufacturing evidence. For some people I would never be able to produce enough evidence to make them decide to be a Christian. I can't produce 100% of the evidence that some people need. If you're like Thomas and you want to see the holes in his hands and his feet where the nails were and place your hands there, it isn't going to happen. Each person has to decide when or if they have enough evidence to trust Jesus. There was enough evidence for me.

I'm not Catholic but I have much respect for my Catholic friends. I don't believe in Saints defined like the Catholics do. I believe in the Sainthood of the believer. All Christians are Saints and are set aside for the Lord and his kingdom. This is just my opinion, but I tend to believe that God doesn't specifically want things to be what brings us healing. Certainly God can use things, but I don't think he would want that thing to be worshipped. All things are possible with God. You also have to think about the dealings of our mind and the power of our own minds and healing. That is why health care providers should be trying to address the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of a person's health.

Saint Kathy hmmmm

 

[Tryharder62]

Double post

 

[phrodeau]

Jesus Christ affirmed the story of Jonah and the rest of the scriptures. He quoted them often to make His points. He is the one who inspired them.

If Jonah rose from the dead after three days, why aren't people worshipping him? Why wasn't Jesus worshipping him?

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

If Jonah rose from the dead after three days, why aren't people worshipping him? Why wasn't Jesus worshipping him?

Because Jonah wasn't God, didn't claim to be God and was only able to do so in God's power. Peter and the disciples performed miracles and they weren't worshiped either. They did those things in God's power and gave the glory to God. Jesus WAS/IS God in the flesh and the disciples knew that.

 

[lickitandstickit]

https://youtu.be/DEKyx_eTxBQ

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Archaeological Support The Bible:

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

 

[colddiesel]

God's Wife.

Archaeological Support The Bible:

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

Two pieces of pottery have been found in Northern Israel. Both are inscribed with a male and female figure.The first has been dated to 1,250 BC the second 1,200 BC.

It states in each case in ancient Hebrew who the figures represent. The first is inscribed "Yaweh and his consort Asherah" and the second "Yaweh and his Asherah."

Considering that Asherah's statue is documented in the Bible as being a feature of the Jerusalem Temple from the reign of Solomon's son down to the exile in 588BC this seems to indicate that monotheism, indeed monolatrism came to the Jews rather later than generally asserted. Certain reforming Kings tried to ban her worship (Notably Josiah) but she kept coming back (eg. Manassah).

It is only after the Jews from Babylon returned in 539 BC under Nehemiah and Ezra that the worship of Asherah completely ceased in the Jerusalem temple.

There is a convincing fit of Archaeological and biblical evidence here to show how the concept of a singular God gradually developed from a more complex past.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Two pieces of pottery have been found in Northern Israel. Both are inscribed with a male and female figure.The first has been dated to 1,250 BC the second 1,200 BC.

It states in each case in ancient Hebrew who the figures represent. The first is inscribed "Yaweh and his consort Asherah" and the second "Yaweh and his Asherah."

Considering that Asherah's statue is documented in the Bible as being a feature of the Jerusalem Temple from the reign of Solomon's son down to the exile in 588BC this seems to indicate that monotheism, indeed monolatrism came to the Jews rather later than generally asserted. Certain reforming Kings tried to ban her worship (Notably Josiah) but she kept coming back (eg. Manassah).

It is only after the Jews from Babylon returned in 539 BC under Nehemiah and Ezra that the worship of Asherah completely ceased in the Jerusalem temple.

There is a convincing fit of Archaeological and biblical evidence here to show how the concept of a singular God gradually developed from a more complex past.

Not true. Look at the ancient scriptures. Also, it is true however that the Jews did worship false gods, even though the true God of the Bible forbid it.

 

[jaF0]

You back again?

Got that Ark ready yet I told you to build? Don't forget my Unicorns!!!